Science outreach: What’s the scientists’ perspective?
Shifting from top-down communication to participatory models and building relationships with audiences lead to more effective science outreach despite challenges like time management and institutional recognition.
Social sciences have long demonstrated that, in many situations, top-down science communication is, at best, ineffective—and at worst, counterproductive. The traditional model, in which scientists act as authoritative figures disseminating knowledge to an uninformed audience, has been shown to do little to improve public understanding of science in targeted audiences. Moreover, this approach can erode trust in scientists and the scientific enterprise, particularly when addressing sensitive and socially relevant topics such as climate change.
In response, alternative communication models have been developed that prioritise audience engagement by considering their expectations and needs. Many of these models promote a bi-directional communication approach, encouraging the public to actively and meaningfully participate in discussions about important scientific issues. To this effect, several training programmes have been developed to equip scientists with the skills needed to integrate participatory communication strategies into their outreach efforts.
A research study published in the Journal of Science Communication explored an often-overlooked aspect of this shift: how scientists participating in this training programme perceive the value of these activities. Researchers from Oregon State University, the authors of this study, conducted semi-structured interviews with participants in STEMAP (the STEM Ambassador Programme), a training initiative designed to promote a “communication as engagement” model to bridge the frequently cited gap between science and society. The study assessed not only the benefits for the audience but also the impact on the scientists involved.
A relationship-based approach to science communication
The STEMAP programme addresses a key challenge in science outreach: how to develop meaningful science communication with large and heterogeneous audiences. Rather than aiming for broad, generalised communication, STEMAP encourages scientists to “identify and develop relationships with target audiences who share certain interests and identities prior to engaging in outreach.” The goal is to build an engaging dialogue where scientists and audiences get to know each other and establish common ground, whether through common traits in their professional or personal identities. This approach focuses on building a relationship of trust and mutual recognition as a valuable foundation for effective knowledge sharing.
Among the 43 researchers from three U.S. universities who participated in STEMAP, 14 provided feedback on their experiences. Most acknowledged the importance of building meaningful relationships with the public, particularly when dealing with contentious scientific topics. One participant summarised this idea by stating, “Relationship building is our only chance; if we can’t make connections, we’re doomed.”
Another key benefit of engaging in this audience-centred outreach model was the opportunity for scientists to connect with the public both as professionals and individuals. Many found that establishing common ground beyond their scientific expertise enriched their communication experiences and became a learning experience for them as well. This suggests that participatory science communication fosters a bi-directional learning process where scientists and the public feel empowered and enriched. This more personal approach also helped researchers engage more effectively with non-traditional science audiences.
Challenges for researchers
Despite its benefits, this relationship-based communication approach presents some challenges. One of the most frequently cited difficulties was time management. Scientists found balancing this time-intensive outreach model with their professional responsibilities and career pressures challenging. Establishing meaningful relationships with a target audience requires several steps including multiple interactions, tailored communication strategies, and sustained engagement with the audience – all of which demand significant time and effort.
A more structural challenge is the lack of institutional recognition for outreach activities. Despite the commitment required, science communication efforts are often undervalued in academic career advancement, particularly for early-career researchers.
These institutional challenges suggest that a structural reorganisation of academia, formally recognising and valuing public engagement as central to their mission, would facilitate broader development of audience-centred outreach activities. Meaningful institutional support could create a virtuous cycle, encouraging more early-career researchers to learn and adopt participatory outreach strategies, ultimately making science communication more effective and accessible.
Read the full article:
